Overrated

Captivating movie !

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

This early feature-length adaptation of the children's classic canters briskly through Lewis Carroll's book, progressing episode by episode from one well-remembered tableau to another and sticking satisfactorily faithfully to the events, imagery and strangeness of the original (the latter two elements through skillful costume design and by making liberal use of verbatim passages of Carroll's dialogue on the title cards).A.A.Young's direction occasionally threatens to be more visually inventive that it ever actually proves to be, and he rather loses control during the croquet game, when he plainly didn't know how to visually organise all those extras milling about the screen for its duration. Although there are a few special effects, the decision to film most of the action out of doors in attractive rural settings and on the coast greatly enhances the charm of the piece. The more fantastic elements of the original are conveyed with the help of imaginatively designed settings and props like the oversized signpost to Wonderland and the enormous mushrooms among which we find the caterpillar smoking his hookah. It's to whoever designed the costumes that the greatest kudos are undoubtedly due. The costumes for the actors portraying the Duchess and the Mock Turtle deserve particular mention; while the lobsters emerging from the ocean to dance the Lobster Quadrille resemble something from a sixties sci-fi movie.Rangy fifteen year-old Viola Savoy's Alice ambles through the far-fetched proceedings with appropriately nonchalant good humour.

It takes some time getting used to silent movies. There's not a lot of text in this film, so the "over acting" according to today's standards, require some patience of the viewer. However, this is a well thought out version of the story, the scenes are played out with trick effects such as perspective, and remembering the year of production, it's very well made. The only thing that really bothered me was the treatment of animals, both real, such as the garden rabbit, and the (I assume) fake, such as the flamingo and hedgehog. Otherwise, a movie well worth watching, especially if you're a Lewis Carroll/Alice-fan. Time well spent.

Before I jump into the review, I have a confession. Although I've seen several versions of "Alice in Wonderland", I really think it's a pretty stupid story and I've never particularly enjoyed it. However, I am a huge silent movie fan and this film is available to watch for free from the IMDb link, so I broke down and watched this film. At 42 minutes, it might seem awfully short, but for 1915 that actually is a full-length film.Unlike later versions, I will admit that this 1915 version is much more episodic--almost like vignettes strung together instead of a smooth story. However, I was VERY impressed by the film for several reasons. Using 1915 technology, it would have been hard to make a better film with better props and better costumes. I was blown away by how much the characters looked like those in the books. Because of this, it's obvious it was not just a cheap slapped-together film but one with a considerable budget for the time. While kids would probably be bored to tears by this film, old movie buffs won't and will probably appreciate this simple but enjoyable version. I still don't love the story, but this is awfully good for what it is.

Finding a recorded copy may be hard to do, but not impossible. There are at least two versions that have survived from the original, both lasting approximately forty minutes. The original was a six-reeler, or about an hour long, which may also have included scenes from the "Through the Looking Glass" story. Minimally, what has survived is missing the defining scene early in the story where Alice grows very big and than small, then later the Mad Hatter scene. We know that these scenes were originally included because Grosset & Dunlap published a book version in 1916, illustrated with pictures from this film. This shows that in addition there was also an Oyster, Humpty Dumpty, Tweedledee and Tweedledum, chess room, and a Queen Alice Banquet scene, but whether as part of this film or another is not clear.Viola Savoy was fifteen years old at the time, and a well known child actress for having toured the nation for several years in the road-show version of "The Littlest Rebel." Whether she was the first to perform the role of Virgie in that play, or not, clearly she was the most popular, which fact contributed to her being cast as Alice in this film. As interviewed in 1912 she had been acting since infancy in over one hundred and twenty different productions. After the "Alice" film, however, she appeared in no more than one or two more films before disappearing from the pages of history.Attempting to evaluate the quality of a circa 1915 "photoplay" rather assumes too much. The industry was yet very young. The notion of "close-up" photography was only beginning to be experimented with and hence, more often, the camera just cranked away from a fixed position, rather like someone sitting in the audience of a typical stage play. While plenty of creativity went into the costuming and set design for this film, the camera remains conspicuous for its lack of imagination. Everything is shot from a distance, and as a result, often there is too much going on to keep track of, and the more subtle features cannot be seen. The nuances of facial expression, therefore, have a forced and exaggerated quality which does nothing to flatter the actress. Additionally, the restricted camera position forces her to be upstaged in all too many scenes. Even so, it is a hauntingly captivating film, delightful to see.